Who in this business would have thought they'd ever be reading a sentence like that eh?
Last week Getty Images quietly announced that they’re now offering Web resolution versions of the images they market for $49. For that you get a digital media license that’s perpetual for royalty free, 10 years for rights ready, and 1 year for rights managed. The full-scale marketing campaign has yet to begin and currently only RF is e-commerce enabled.
Click here to see the blurb.
This is a development that I think will have some good, some bad and some potentially ugly ramifications for everyone in the professional stock image industry.
The good…In the face of market-gobbling competition from microstock $49 for Getty marketed royalty free sounds like a smart move. Yes, there’s some crossover in quality between trad RF and micro, but there’s also a great amount of Getty marketed RF that is way ahead of any micro offering: Well worth the extra cost if my experience with professional stock image buyers is anything to go by. There’s also a depth of coverage over the key stock image genre’s in Getty marketed RF that micro does not come close to matching. I suspect that the majority of the photographers who have selected Getty to market their RF images will be fine with this new file-size/price point for digital media licenses. Royalty free stock is about volume and this price drop and the complementary marketing may well increase sales volume to the satisfaction of all involved.
The bad…Including rights managed imagery (which includes rights ready) is a potentially contentious issue. Not just for the copyright holding image creators who have made the decision to market specific images rights managed, but for everyone on the supply side of this little industry that is premium priced stock image licensing … and that of course includes the 1600-or-so good people at Getty Images.
When professional stock photographers create royalty free images they are usually embarking on a day or three’s lively shooting to fulfil an extensive shoot list. The shoot list, the set, cast, crew, etc. are all brought together for the sole purpose of producing a set of highly marketable stock images. Post production is usually fast & simple – Essential retouching and little else. The sole purpose of the set is a steady income stream via the royalty free stock license and its supporting marketing machine. Making volume licenses is what it’s all about (at 20% royalty it has to be).
A rights managed set can be the same in many ways. Many are calculated productions run purely for generating a profitable return. Both RF and RM productions may be 12 hours in pre-production. Both may have production costs totalling £3400. Both may take two days of shooting. Both may be 14 hours in post. The difference between them comes with the volume and diversity of the final edit. The RF edit might typically result in 85 relatively simply styled images covering around 20 clear scenario variations and a good selection of basic portrait based images. The RM set might consist of 15 finished images each meticulously lit and then digitally styled. Each of these 15 images will have a high degree of individuality and conceptual value.
Then there’s the rights managed imagery that’s not a ‘product’ of a profit driven production. Getty Images is fortunate to represent the work of some World class photographers. Work that richly deserves the label of art (a term grossly overused in this industry). A single one of these images may have been several days in the making. It will often be sold in galleries as limited edition fine art prints. This is award winning stuff. A pure form of image making insofar as being the end result of a great photographers personal creative vision. This is imagery that is essentially unique, beautiful and inspiring to view.
For the rights managed photographer producing targeted stock imagery for profit, $49 for a commercial Web license is possibly financially damaging: 6 working days, £3400 ($7200) outlay, 15 targeted stock images, each with have a 7-12 year marketable lifespan. One commercial Web license would have been $900+, but now it’s $49. This new ‘offer’ may result in an 18+:1 sales ratio, but the fundamental selling point for RM is rights management and a level of exclusivity. If RM stock images are distributed broadly they can begin to loose value. Look at it from a buyers point-of-view…
You’ve found the ‘perfect’ image for your 3 month, pan-European, cross-media advertising campaign in the travel industry. Naturally you enquire about its history: There’s a 1 month, half-page, inside consumer mag in Portugal (3 months ago), a 5000 run investors report cover for a US pharmaceutical company (expires in 6 weeks), and a one-day use inside a UK national newspaper at 1/8 5 months ago. That would be acceptable non-conflicting exposure and all things being equal the deal would be done. But when Getty’s rep replies with, “oh, and 9 Worldwide digital media licenses all still in effect for another 3-11 months”, the whole $15,500 deal instantly goes down the toilet… The customer loses. The photographer loses. Getty Images loses.
Put simply, if an 18:1 ratio is to be met (to just equal the current RM license fee) the extra exposure may have a significant impact on the images potential for high profile (aka high value) licenses. Getty will have poured over the data and done all their sums but they cannot run a pivot table to quantify the level of end user reaction to image over-exposure.
For most photographers it’s not all about the cash, and for the artists who have entrusted a piece of their personal vision to Getty Images for stock licensing …Well, for the sake of keeping it clean let’s not go there. No need to spell it out surely. It’s obvious isn’t it? ...Obviously not to an experienced few in the industry.
The potentially ugly...
OK, this is a turning out to be quite a long entry so bear with me and I’ll keep this last part relatively brief.
It’s estimated that in $ terms Getty supplies approx. one-third of the entire stock image licensing market. This means that when they take an initiative others often feel (or genuinely are) compelled to follow. Recent history has proved this to be the case on several significant occasions. Ultimately all RM licenses may be devalued across-the-board by this development, especially when you consider the steady shift away from print toward digital media for advertising spend.
Getty already has coverage at every price point – iStockphoto, Punchstock, & Getty Images. Why have they chosen to devalue their best, most exclusive images when they already have all the bases covered?
There may be another repercussion: A negative reaction from Getty’s mission critical suppliers – Photographers. As a group they have put up with placement fees. They have accepted rights ready’s gratuitous 10 year license. They remained relatively calm when their RM material was shifted to RR en masse. They have also dealt patiently with error-ridden keywording and ever more restricted channels of communication. A list price of $49 for a 1 year Worldwide RM commercial license may just be the straw that breaks their bleeding backs.
Either vocally or silently many of the once committed, still talented photographers who selected Getty to be their distribution partner may move on to where they feel their imagery is respected and profession better understood. And being predominantly creative individuals that entered the profession for the good of their souls over their pockets, they may well be willing to resign themselves to a short-term financial hit in doing so.
Ultimately the commercial World wants high quality stock images (as well as page fillers), and it’s photographers that create and own them. Stock image licensing is currently a simple symbiotic three-way business relationship: Creator - Distributor - End User. For all to thrive in the long-term, the relationship between them needs to be based on mutual respect, co-operation & understanding. It should to be equitable and profitable for all parties. This balance has been lost and the disparity is now being stretched even further. Unless the balance is redressed, something sooner or later will give. If that happens the landscape of the high-end stock image industry will be radically changed – But whatever happens it is the Image Creators and End Users that are guaranteed to remain.
Labels: Stock Photography
